agree with you that this is a fine project. my initial comment was meant to express the frustration felt by many that A) this project as stands could have been the center piece it deserves to be with minor adjustments (some height + pizzazz), and B) Salesforce's other towers stand out more in relation to their immediate environment, regardless of whether they built or bought them. As it stands, the renderings show WPS to be essentially a larger, rotated WPE.

Salesforce SF
Salesforce Indy
Salesforce NY

Yep, no need to feel too sore about this one while we have One Chicago on deck. This particular building will just go down as a "meh", and we'll just look forward to other buildings that do live up to their potential.

Salesforce Chicago will be nearly 200' taller than Salesforce NYC, and it will stand out MUCH more prominently in relation to its immediate environment.

physically yes but uniquely, no. it will be surrounded by its shorter siblings, one of which is a near identical scaled down version and the other is a smaller blue glass rectangle with more balconies. not to mention the 3 other new blue, rectangular office buildings in that section of the river.

I love this section of city and its urban feel with reflections of the boats and trains on the glass, but I'm also thoroughly surprised/disappointed that Salesforce didn't push for more of an it-factor for their new building, aside from the LED screen they proposed.

To just about everyone's point; they should have gone the extra mile considering the location. A bulky, 100' spire, like at the Comcast Tech Center in Philly or at 425 Park, would have made ALLLL the difference here. :shrug:

Yeah a spire - in Chicago - would have put them in the same camp as Trump Tower. I prefer the form follows function school - more honest. That little stick on top of 403 N Wabash is small enough that nobody here notices, and people elsewhere can be impressed.

Salesforce SF is understandably bold, as San Francisco is the epicenter of tech and Salesforce is one of the industries premier companies.

NY isn’t noticeable at all. I’ve walked past the building several times and didn’t notice it. I suppose in pictures it stands out because it’s green glass instead of blue, but it’s not especially tall and doesn’t stick out from a design standpoint.

Indy is Indy... it was an old tower in a tier 3 city that probably cost the Salesforce equivalent of chump change for naming rights.

The Chicago tower is in one of the most prominent downtown locations in the city (hell, maybe one of the most prominent downtown locations in the country? What other major city has a location like this being developed for a single tower?). I’d say if the argument is that Salesforce usually tries to get dibs on their satellite cities premier office towers, Chicago would be example #1.

At the end of the day, they are an anchor tenant, but are only leasing 40% of the available square footage. And I believe it is mostly lower floors at that. SalesForce leases 2/3 of the San Francisco tower, in addition to having a small ownership stake in the building.

They have some leverage, of course, but some folks are kind of losing a bit of context here. Having naming rights and it being 'their' building are different things.

This is an important point, this was designed and awaiting a final loan to be built; Salesforce committed to renting a big chunk of space which help speed along the financing, but without them (and ignoring corona for a moment) it would have still been built as "Wolf Point South" instead of "Salesforce Building".

I think about the proportionality of the Trump Tower spire at least once a week. I pray that one day it will be replaced.

If Salesforce had any kind of southward gesture it would be a top tier design.

Yeah, Salesforce in Indy is a pre existing rather non descript building. It's tall for Indy is about all that can be said. They simply slapped their name on it and it's very likely Salesforce shrinks its workforce in Indy with the completion of Chicago's tower.

The current SF building is easily the best of the 3 - not even close to me. Chicago will be top 2 after that for me once it's completed. I'll probably prefer SF's but the Chicago one to me is better in its renderings at least than the one in NYC and Indy. The one in Manhattan is definitely not very noticeable - only the fact that it's next to Bryant Park is the reason and it's a different color. When you're walking on the street it's just another new building. Nobody really ever stops to look at it from what I've seen (which is a lot of times) - I remember when it was being built too. The Bank of America Tower across the street is way better at the ground level and way more noticeable.

Salesforce has a big Indy presence due to it's acquisition of Exact Target a few years ago, which is now Salesforce Marketing Cloud.

The one on the far left - with the twin spires(antenna ?)

That is the former Chase Tower, built in 1990. Not built for Salesforce. Not sure how much space SF occupies.

Back to the Chicago site. They are killing it digging. Alot faster than most others BMO and others. Almost got the whole riverline. Yeah thats for riverwalk but these guys aren't wasting any time.

May 13

Up close
Chicago | Sales Force Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | Sales Force Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

In context ( note that the renders do not show Wolf Point West ).
Chicago | Sales Force Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | Sales Force Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Indianapolis. Such a sad little skyline.....

^Haha. You know it's weak when it's made up mostly of power lines. All skylines can't be Chicago, of course!

Indianapolis Thread